These numbers are just a further re-affirmation of how heavily favored the Democrats are to win the White House in 2008:
Beneath those broad numbers lies harder evidence suggesting a Democratic financial tsunami is building.
The total number of donors who gave more than $200 in the first six months of this year to Democrats was 137,388 compared to 81,075 givers to Republicans, the Campaign Finance Institute study found.
If history serves as a guide, many of those primary donors will be inherited by the party nominee next year, much as Democrat Howard Dean’s Internet activists stuck with nominee John F. Kerry in 2004.
“The Democratic nominee will begin with an unprecedented fundraising base and will be able to draw on the unprecedented fundraising bases of other Democrats. That will make for a very powerful force,” said Anthony Corrado, a political fundraising expert who serves on the Campaign Finance Institute’s board.
The primary engine behind the Democratic gains is the upstart campaign of Obama. His new face and soaring rhetoric draws huge crowds on the campaign trail that can turn thousands of $5 donations into real money.
Discuss (or gloat or lament).
The primary engine behind the Democratic gains is the upstart campaign of Obama. His new face and soaring rhetoric draws huge crowds on the campaign trail that can turn thousands of $5 donations into real money.
I would tend to agree with that, but if Hillary is the nominee, then what? I still can envision people coming out of the woodwork to back the GOP nominee just to keep her out of the White House.
From the article above:
I expect almost all of Obama's donors to support Hillary eventually.
Unfortunately, I don't see the GOP as being nearly as unified. For example, if Rudy wins the nomination (and I said "if" - this is not the place to argue the probability of it happening), there have already been supporters of other candidates who have said they won't campaign for him.
Hillary is so annoying I wouldn't count on a fluid conversion of Obama supporters - at least not amongst those $5 donors. The hacks and big $ folks - yeah, probably.
Hillary might also convince some of those hesitant GOP folks to back Rudy out of necessity.
"Hillary is so annoying I wouldn't count on a fluid conversion of Obama supporters - at least not amongst those $5 donors. The hacks and big $ folks - yeah, probably."
I would argue that Hillary is no more annoying than Kerry, and Dean's supporters flocked to Kerry.
"Hillary might also convince some of those hesitant GOP folks to back Rudy out of necessity."
Perhaps - but that's not the rhetoric I'm hearing now. It's as if some take it as a personal insult that some Republicans would even consider nominating someone who's not "right" on their issues.
Yeah, I don't know how well that "take my ball and go home" strategy is working in Illinois. Blago sure is making a mess of stuff, but I am not sure that is making it any more likely the IL GOP will embrace a "right" thinking Gov candidate next time around.
If I'm going to contribute to the GOP, then I want them to give me a reason to do that--start acting like a party that wants to represent me and act like you want to win elections. So far, all I've seen is a bunch of whiners who claim they 've been elected to work with the Democrats, and sometimes, I see no difference between the two parties. In fact, on some issues, I've seen some Democrats acts more responsibly than the Republicans. If that's the case, then why shouldn't I just send money to candidates of either party who represent my interests, and skip the national parties, the RNC, etc?
"If that's the case, then why shouldn't I just send money to candidates of either party who represent my interests, and skip the national parties, the RNC, etc?"
You mean abandon blind partisanship? There has to be something wrong with that...something disloyal....maybe even unpatriotic.
Please give us a few minutes while we attempt to process your outrageous proposal.
You mean abandon blind partisanship?
That is not the principal/strategy about which IP is worried. He is worried about those who won't support a candidate because of a certain litmus-test position. Main example - Rudy will lose support of pro-lifers. Not that Hillary or Obama would be better on that issue, but to punish the GOP for letting a pro-choicer win the nomination.
Given GWB & Co.'s performance in the White house since 2000, the GOP performance in Congress over the same period, the Illinois GOP corruptive recent history and poor canidates, fundamental changes will have to occur before either I personally or my company gives any $'s to the state or national GOP or their canidates.
Mainly, it would give me great pleasure not to support a national GOP which backs BIG GOVERNMENT taking more and more of my rights, a "My way or the Highway" President who still has yet to achieve federal coordination and communication deficiencies highlighed by 9/11 and again by Katrina. Also, there is personal satifaction in knowing I would not be supporting a state GOP 'good ole boy/girl' politicial organization who feels corruption is just a necessary evil to tolerated as long as it is less than the Illinois Democrats.
I am guessing my employees would appreciate a nice extra bonus this year and next.
Republicans to Democrats: Our party sucks... we quit. Have fun with it until our party is worth voting for.
Democrats to Republicans: Thanks! Hope you enjoy everything you didn't like about those party guys that ticked you off... we're going to do that but ten times worse!
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
I think Oil Man's comment about sums it up. I'm not interested in some litmus test for a candidate, but I would like for the Republican candidate to try to look a little more like a Republican rather than try to out-liberal his Democratic opponent. I'm thinking of the national party's support for comprehensive immigration bill, No Child Left Behind, subsidized health care for children, I believe, prescription medications, etc., etc., etc. While some of those things may be worthy, the way the Republicans have gone about them is ridiculous. Although I'm conservative, I'd vote for Rudy in a heartbeat because I think he'll take a strong stand against the terrorists; appoint strict constructionist judges; and leave some issues up to the States where they belong. If he does that, I can live with some of his positions on other issues
I'm thinking of the national party's support for comprehensive immigration bill, No Child Left Behind, subsidized health care for children, I believe, prescription medications, etc., etc., etc.
The problem has been that the party has not been led by a true conservative - Bush is "a uniter, not a divider", and a "compassionate conservative" to boot. The above things would not have passed thru a GOP Congress without a GOP President pushing them.
"Hillary is so annoying..." ....that the GOP dollars will start flowing when it's time to fight her!
She has such high negatives to begin with, that when she starts moving to the center, voters will start looking for an alternative. It is interesting to watch Hillary straddling the divide between prudent military action and what the far left is demanding. I'm not as pessimistic as all of you about the GOP.
"I'm not as pessimistic as all of you about the GOP."
It's not that I think Hillary is a strong candidate. It's that I think the national Republicans have done an incredible amount of damage to the brand.
As I've said before, I think the only thing that can screw up this election for the Democrats is the Democrats.
ChampaignDweller said: "I think Oil Man's comment about sums it up. I'm not interested in some litmus test for a candidate, but I would like for the Republican candidate to try to look a little more like a Republican rather than try to out-liberal his Democratic opponent. "
IMHO, this is why we need instant runoff voting. Vote for your true love, then stipulate that if he/she can't win, only THEN does your vote fall to the "lesser of the two evils." If everyone did that, your true love might get enough votes to win!
Let's get rid of spoilers. This "I'm so afraid, I have to vote for the milquetoast that's not quite the other guy's milquetoast" business is for the birds.
So, are the Dems going to commit suicide by making Hillary their nominee?
My parents raised their children to be Dems, so I'm leaning towards Obama. If the party makes that woman their nominee, I will be voting Republican or 3rd party. (and that includes $$ donations and yard signs).
I won't vote for Hillary because I think she's a carpetbagger. I have a friend who won't voter for her because she tolerated Bill scr**ing around on her for all those years. (My friend's marriage broke up over the spouse's infidelity).
for everyone who votes for Hillary because she's a woman, I would be willing to bet there at least one ( and possibly more) who will vote against her for that same reason.
To win the election, the Dems need to hang on to all their voters, plus peel folks off from the Republicans, 3rd party, and Independents. I don't think Hillary can do that.
And don't give me this crap about how it's "her turn". I wasn't there when she and Bill made that deal ( I would have registered my objections then), and was it "her turn" to be the senator from New York?